1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, united states of america.
The Respondent is Merl Matrix GmbH of Baar, Zug, Switzerland, internally represented.
2. The Website Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint ended up being filed with all the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. A request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name on March 7, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail into the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is listed given that registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result up to a notification because of the middle that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your grievance on March 13, 2018. The middle received communications that are several the Respondent on March 7, 2018, March 13, 2018 and March 15, 2018.
The Center verified that the problem alongside the amended grievance pleased the formal demands for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with Complaint, additionally the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Relative to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction ended up being filed because of the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 as well as the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian given that single panelist in this matter on April 27 silverdaddies, 2018. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the middle to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the business enterprise of providing online social network, dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of those solutions 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs the web sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded internet site users may produce individual reports, search and view member pages, donate to community forums, and read helpful and informative articles from the official “Tinder” web log.
The Complainant reaches consumers worldwide via its popular “Tinder” dating and networking that is social applications for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The Android os variation has already reached over 100 million installs since inception in July 2013 and over 10 billion dating matches since 2012.
The Complainant holds a number of authorized trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect of this TINDER mark including, for instance, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 for the term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in international course 9 (mobile computer programs) and usa registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide course 45 ( Internet-based networking that is social introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain name is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a dating business. The web site from the disputed domain title features the phrase “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that is stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for the consumer to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots created by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel records that the very best type of the initial advertisement might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly much like a trademark for which it owns liberties;
That the Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions when you look at the disputed domain title; and therefore the disputed domain title ended up being registered and it is used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain title is practically exactly the same as its TINDER mark however for a small misspelling and ended up being registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking usually do not think about the domain that is top-level assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed website name is supposed to relate solely to the Complainant’s services and strengthens the observed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent is certainly not connected to or endorsed by the Complainant and contains never been certified or authorized to utilize any one of its subscribed marks, nor any designation that is confusingly similar as an element of a domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) associated with the Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the domain that is disputed in experience of a genuine offering of products or services since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that internet surfers are lured to a dubious internet site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are made to confusingly suggest that the Respondent could be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not yet become popularly known as “tender”, nor had been it therefore understood once the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the disputed domain name and that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal for the own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth of this Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states so it was which consists of TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and therefore its formal domain had been registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the disputed domain title ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw an incorrect relationship, considering that the internet site from the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free online dating sites. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract individuals via confusion created utilizing the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation of this disputed domain title whereby such users will believe these are generally coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed because of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions were made knowingly and deceitfully because of the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users trying to find “tender” and dating would be much more very likely to do this predicated on knowing of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending it is way more plausible that the Respondent find the disputed domain name since it is confusingly comparable thereto. The Complainant submits so it owns based on a dictionary word sometimes used in dating profiles that it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend the equivalent of more than USD 35,000 promoting an allegedly generic site which is one of many. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never do this if it failed to make far more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration of other names of domain since this is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it within a safe-harbor which can be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while a celebration may legitimately register a website name composed of a word that is dictionary utilize the web web site for content strongly related this is of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, and on occasion even calls to mind dating but instead defines a characteristic through which some people on dating sites may recognize by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t provide a reason as to why it just registered a domain title that will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling for the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” isn’t generic for a dating internet site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.